I've had with with smartphones and carriers. Seriously, I'm done..

[IOWA]

..Taking their nonsense. I've been doing a bit of research, and I think we can appeal to the FCC, BBB, and even SUE for carriers/manufacturers locking down our handsets. (i.e. no root access)

This would also affect the likes of Apple, Microsoft, and every other mobile platform who locks our handheld computers, because that's exactly what they are, computers.

Comments? Would people here join a class-action lawsuit of sorts to open everything up should we choose too? Across all platforms? I'm willing to bet if this got big enough the ACLU or even Google would back us.

 

[A.Nonymous]

No. You'd lose and you wouldn't find a lawyer to take it unless you're willing to pay them tens of thousands of dollars out of pocket. Carriers and manufacturers block root access for security reasons. Good luck getting the ACLU or anyone else to take it.

 

[jtreadwell]

Honestly if this were successful it would open the door for someone to convince a judge to make it unlawful for corporate IT to lockdown desktop computers. Imagine what that would cause. If that first person who decided to Sue McDonald's because they were a fat couch potato had kept on sitting and done nothing the world would be a better place. Don't open another Pandora's box please.

 

[IOWA]

Honestly if this were successful it would open the door for someone to convince a judge to make it unlawful for corporate IT to lockdown desktop computers. Imagine what that would cause. If that first person who decided to Sue McDonald's because they were a fat couch potato had kept on sitting and done nothing the world would be a better place. Don't open another Pandora's box please.

Thats different. Those people dont own those computers, now do they?

Do you think it would be ok if HP, Apple, Dell, etc sold computers with locked bootloaders and you can only buy apps from their designated stores? Seems to be where it's heading.

My issue is companies locking MY hardware that I BOUGHT with MY money.

And tens of thousands of dollars? Please. All we'd need is a bit of media coverage before some "fame-ready" lawyer who wants to make a name for himself takes the case.

 

[Tangent]

I think what would probably sink any lawsuit like this is that you didn't buy a device that the carriers later locked. You bought a locked device. You have exactly what they advertised to you, no less. I think a more apt comparison would be how the XBox only plays XBox games and not PlayStation games.

 

[IOWA]

I think what would probably sink any lawsuit like this is that you didn't buy a device that the carriers later locked. You bought a locked device. You have exactly what they advertised to you, no less. I think a more apt comparison would be how the XBox only plays XBox games and not PlayStation games.

Well I can see that as sort of valid, but locking down the "markets" or "app stores" would still fall under "anti-trust" violations, would it not?

 

[AndroidSPCS]

Well I can see that as sort of valid, but locking down the "markets" or "app stores" would still fall under "anti-trust" violations, would it not?

Apple's done this for 3 years and have yet to be successfully sued for doing this...so while I agree with you, I don't think the lawsuit is going to go far.

 

[Tangent]

Well I can see that as sort of valid, but locking down the "markets" or "app stores" would still fall under "anti-trust" violations, would it not?

Dunno, but isn't AT&T the only provider that's pulling that crap on Android users?

 

[Bob Maxey]

Well I can see that as sort of valid, but locking down the "markets" or "app stores" would still fall under "anti-trust" violations, would it not?

Not sure what your point might be. Anyone who buys an android phone or an iPod has access to the respective markets. Are you saying locking the markets so only a select few can gain access and off limits to everyone else?

Clarify please

Bob Maxey

 

[IOWA]

Apple's done this for 3 years and have yet to be successfully sued for doing this...so while I agree with you, I don't think the lawsuit is going to go far.

Actually no...

Apple Lifts Restrictions for App Approvals - NYTimes.com

That is the result of anti-trust investigations. I'm willing to bet Adobe had it's hand in that.

Here's the better question though. Why do you think it's ok to lock people out of their own hardware?

 

[AndroidSPCS]

...Why do you think it's ok to lock people out of their own hardware?

I don't... that's why my iPhones are jailbroken, and my Androids are rooted... I hate anything the carriers / manufacturers do to lock down the phones.

 

[IOWA]

I don't... that's why my iPhones are jailbroken, and my Androids are rooted... I hate anything the carriers / manufacturers do to lock down the phones.

Then we are in agreement. All it takes is enough noise to be heard. Just because something is unlikely, or hard, doesn't make it impossible. What makes it impossible, is doing nothing about it.

 

[Bitbang3r]

Our salvation won't come from courts... it's going to come from China.

We're basically a year or two away from a complete *explosion* of Chinese Android phones compatible with American UMTS bands. When it finally happens, they're going to basically turn ARM-architecture and Rockchip-video into Android's de-facto x86 "VGA" -- phone after phone that's rootable by little more than running Connectbot, connecting to localhost, and typing "su", running Android builds that are literally straight from Google's Git repo, with a few patches to accommodate the Rockchip ASICs.

Initially, they won't work on Verizon or Sprint. Then, a few CDMA2000 models meant for China's domestic market will find their way into the US, and eventually end up on Verizon (Verizon can't say no, because they're part of the Bell monopoly's legacy and still subject to the consent decree that broke it up 25 years ago). At that point, it will only be a matter of time before Sprint customers start screaming to the FCC, the FCC sees that the flood of generic Chinese Android phones hasn't destroyed AT&T, T-Mobile, or Verizon, and lays down the law for Sprint as well.

The catch? We're still probably 4-5 years away from imported generic Chinese Android phones that can do WiMax or LTE (though the first phone that can do WiMax AND LTE will almost certainly come from Shenzhen, and NOT from Sprint or Verizon).

 

[Snow_Fox]

No. You'd lose and you wouldn't find a lawyer to take it unless you're willing to pay them tens of thousands of dollars out of pocket. Carriers and manufacturers block root access for security reasons. Good luck getting the ACLU or anyone else to take it.

No it isn't.

If you buys desktop there is NO reason you can't install ubuntu on it :/

I am not saying "never trust corporations" but, i am saying "take it with a grain of salt"

Root is not to be taken lightly.. but, imagine if you bought windows 7 and microsoft told you, you have no administrative privileges.. it would be a useless computer!

it actually bugs me as a comp sci major.. If your phone goes out because of faulty hardware... what difference does it make what software it is running?

I custom built my pc so I don't have to worry about the "dell warranty" and what voids it.. The hard drive manufacturer sure as hell doesn't ask what os my pc is running..they fix the problem or get me a new one if its under warranty!

I don't expect the carrier to be able to fix my problem if I have it installing custom roms... But, if the hardware goes out they better sure as hell replace the faulty hardware!

I think what would probably sink any lawsuit like this is that you didn't buy a device that the carriers later locked. You bought a locked device. You have exactly what they advertised to you, no less. I think a more apt comparison would be how the XBox only plays XBox games and not PlayStation games.

yes and no.

I mean.. I hate to think of it like this.. but, it poses the question of price gouging to me.

You agree to take the device as is... and end up buying inflated and hell sometimes inferior services (apps more than services but, you get the point) because, your phone is "locked".

This raises the question, if your signing a contract in meaning the company will make back whatever they lose on the cost of the phone.. and you are "paying it off" over the course of your contract..

Why should they be allowed to shake you down for additional money?

If they block apps that are free and have similar functionality to paid apps..they are creating an artificial demand for a product..

for a ps3 / 360 comparison.

Everyone in the world knows ps3 does play 360 games or vice versa.

And while 360 charges on a monthly basis for internet and ps3 is free..

The difference is, there are two different markets your connecting to at the end of the day.

Me and my imaginary nexus one connect to the same android market as everyone else..

Only.. my carrier (failt&t) restricts what apps I can get :/

*Edit*

I will be the first to admit I feel like smart phones are a legal racket.. but, I still want one..

My biggest issue is warranty... there will always be an unlock/jailbreak available.. the question is why should it void the warranty..

I understand if I get a dell and I install ubuntu.. the morons at the help desk aren't gunna know anything about it... But, if the hardware goes it.. it is none of their business if I had ubuntu or cereal killer 2.0:bloody milk edition installed. If they don't handle the warranty then hopefully the component manufacturer will... but, there are options I can take as a consumer that aren't available in the phone world..

 

[IOWA]

And stuff like this DOES mean there is hope at the end of the tunnel.

Now legal in the U.S.: Jailbreaking your iPhone, ripping a DVD for educational purposes

 

[jtreadwell]

The question is do we really own the devices unless we pay full retail price for them. Any carrier will tell you the reason for the outrageous early termination fee is so they can still profit from the sale of the device. So in essence most of us are renting our phones. Or at least financing them. Some would argue that does give them the right to tell us what we can and cannot do with them. Most of their restrictions are to preserve the security and integrity of their network. There was a time I would have cried BS to that but now that I have managed larger networks I can understand. If someone plugs something strange into my network I have protocols to disable it not to mention where I am likley to stick their device if I catch them with it.

 

[IOWA]

The question is do we really own the devices unless we pay full retail price for them. Any carrier will tell you the reason for the outrageous early termination fee is so they can still profit from the sale of the device. So in essence most of us are renting our phones. Or at least financing them. Some would argue that does give them the right to tell us what we can and cannot do with them. Most of their restrictions are to preserve the security and integrity of their network. There was a time I would have cried BS to that but now that I have managed larger networks I can understand. If someone plugs something strange into my network I have protocols to disable it not to mention where I am likley to stick their device if I catch them with it.

Actually, I believe we do. The signed contract grants us ownership of the phone, either by completing the contract, or, paying an etf. Either way, it's ours.

And as for network issues, the operators of respective networks never lose control of the networks, and "lockless" phones have been working in Europe for ages already.

 

[Napalm]

First off you mentioned the ACLU and that in if self is laughable and a rant for another day.

meanwhile: You purposely bought said device from said manufacturer/carrier arangement. Therefore you have committed TACIT agreement with their decisions on how the device functions. They never advertised the device (say DroidX as being unlocked or fully open source, though it runs Android OS)

You don't have a leg to stand on, so to speak.

 

[IOWA]

First off you mentioned the ACLU and that in if self is laughable and a rant for another day.

meanwhile: You purposely bought said device from said manufacturer/carrier arangement. Therefore you have committed TACIT agreement with their decisions on how the device functions. They never advertised the device (say DroidX as being unlocked or fully open source, though it runs Android OS)

You don't have a leg to stand on, so to speak.

Actually, we do. It's all about that thing called "anti-trust", and locking the phones to a specific carrier by itself is infringing.

And besides, contracts have been completely invalided in the past with laws being written so why not now?

 

[gallandof]

In our customer agreement it no where states that we are loaning you the phone with the service. you purchase the phone and after 30 days it is yours (30 days for the return policy).


Customer Agreement

 

[Snow_Fox]

My friend actually had a really good point.

Carriers should not be allowed to tamper with the phones *AT ALL* and they should be prevented from restricting what carrier you can use within reason.

His logic is that when you sign the contract you pay part of the cost of the phone and the phone is subsidized in cost by the company because, they plan on recovering the cost of the phone through your contract.

When you cancel your contract early, you pay a termination fee to yet again, cover the remainder of the cost of the phone.

Why should carriers be allowed to have control over equipment *you* are paying for?

Just because, you don't pay for it upfront does not mean that the phone itself isn't yours. You pay for the phone one way or the other. Now barring different technology types (cdma vs gsm ect) If i get on at&t.. leave at&t and have paid my fee's ect why should I be able to use by default that phone on *ANY* compatible carrier I want to? I paid for it!

Now let me take this one step further, why should at&t carriers be able to restrict what market apps you have access to?

You can argue "buy an unlocked phone!" but, the flaw in that logic is you are still paying for the full cost of the device, PLUS your paying the full subsidized bill even though, YOU are paid full cost for the device!

Also while I'm at it.. how is it a threat to their network when I download an app? if something happens and i waste 8 gigs of data, guess what? at&t doesn't care whether its a rogue app or not.. that is 100$ they make off of me that month.

I think the proper term is "it is a threat to their profits".

they aren't claiming "it could damage our network" they are claiming "its to protect your information!"

There would have to be some hardcore botnets involved to seriously mess with at&t's network..

food for thought, how are rogue apps any more a threat to at&ts network than malicious programs on a regular computer connected to a high speed internet provider :/

*IF* at&t still had unlimited data plans.. I could argue they have the right to not allow certain things like torrenting.. but, they don't.. so you only hurt yourself trying to torrent the latest pirated warez.

*edit*

If I ever have an internet provider that won't let me download a free possibly better version of some service they offer just because, they don't want competition.. well then guess what? I'm droppin em. I understand *SOME* level of security.. but, lets face it.. companies are blatantly abusing their abilities.

 

[Bob Maxey]

A few random thoughts . . .

Is the act of Rooting in violation of some law, or your TOS, or the contract you signed? Perhaps buried in the boilerplate there is something about decompiling or making changes you are not aware of. Is the word decompiling defined? (if it is mentioned, I do not know, never read my contract) Perhaps the lawyers that drafted the contract assumes making any changes is decompiling. A stretch, but what the heck.

Have you determined if the act of rooting affects something that is against FCC rules and regulations? I absolutely guarantee you have not read the law. For example, if you are a HAM you know about Part 97, but that covers amateur operators and it specifically discusses out of band transmissions and what can affect them. It covers a small part of a very large body of law that affects other parts of the spectrum and how it is and is not used.

For all you know, rooting your phone violates some obscure provision of the law regardless of whether or not it is a valid concern or not. You can bet the other side will consider these issues and try to get your case bounced out of court.

Can rooting affect anything at all, no matter how minor, in some way that violates the law or your contract? Is rooting that important that it is a big issue with the public?

Does the proposed class action lawsuit serve the greater good; are you materially affected by not being able to do whatever you want to do? I say no and I'll also say that a mere handful of Droid Phone Users (as a percentage of the whole) care about Root access.

You mentioned computers and root access or administrative privilege. Well, sir, see what can happen when this is allowed? People screw up their systems meddling in things they should leave the hell alone. Every site I read about rooting provides a stern warning about what can happen.

Did you know about rooting before you bought your phone? Did you know it was locked and you bought it anyway? Why? You bought something you consider "defective" and you are surprised? I once bought a car with no breaks. Should I sue the seller because I hit something and damaged my car?

You are not always free to make changes to the consumer electronic devices you buy. So does this mean you really do not own them? Some things are blocked and you are prevented access. For example, see what happens if you get caught with a modified amateur radio that receives cellular calls. Illegal. You own the HT and we all own the airwaves. So why block access? The public good. Again, admittedly a stretch and a tad far afield, but your case would not be simple and the other side will go as far afield as they need to to win.

I think we should have more control. I want to delete several apps added by Cricket, but I am not allowed. This does not affect me in the slightest and it certainly ain't no federal case.

Bob Maxey

 

[IOWA]

A few random thoughts . . .

Is the act of Rooting in violation of some law, or your TOS, or the contract you signed? Perhaps buried in the boilerplate there is something about decompiling or making changes you are not aware of. Is the word decompiling defined? (if it is mentioned, I do not know, never read my contract) Perhaps the lawyers that drafted the contract assumes making any changes is decompiling. A stretch, but what the heck.

Have you determined if the act of rooting affects something that is against FCC rules and regulations? I absolutely guarantee you have not read the law. For example, if you are a HAM you know about Part 97, but that covers amateur operators and it specifically discusses out of band transmissions and what can affect them. It covers a small part of a very large body of law that affects other parts of the spectrum and how it is and is not used.

For all you know, rooting your phone violates some obscure provision of the law regardless of whether or not it is a valid concern or not. You can bet the other side will consider these issues and try to get your case bounced out of court.

Can rooting affect anything at all, no matter how minor, in some way that violates the law or your contract? Is rooting that important that it is a big issue with the public?

Does the proposed class action lawsuit serve the greater good; are you materially affected by not being able to do whatever you want to do? I say no and I'll also say that a mere handful of Droid Phone Users (as a percentage of the whole) care about Root access.

You mentioned computers and root access or administrative privilege. Well, sir, see what can happen when this is allowed? People screw up their systems meddling in things they should leave the hell alone. Every site I read about rooting provides a stern warning about what can happen.

Did you know about rooting before you bought your phone? Did you know it was locked and you bought it anyway? Why? You bought something you consider "defective" and you are surprised? I once bought a car with no breaks. Should I sue the seller because I hit something and damaged my car?

You are not always free to make changes to the consumer electronic devices you buy. So does this mean you really do not own them? Some things are blocked and you are prevented access. For example, see what happens if you get caught with a modified amateur radio that receives cellular calls. Illegal. You own the HT and we all own the airwaves. So why block access? The public good. Again, admittedly a stretch and a tad far afield, but your case would not be simple and the other side will go as far afield as they need to to win.

I think we should have more control. I want to delete several apps added by Cricket, but I am not allowed. This does not affect me in the slightest and it certainly ain't no federal case.

Bob Maxey

Actually no, now there is a recent law that just got passed that makes it perfectly legal to Root/Jailbreak your phone/device and the carrier can't penalize you for it.

Also the restrictions of the phones to certain carriers has been done before.. by ATT Landline. And the Government had no problem breaking up that little problem. See way back in the day you couldn't use a NON-ATT phone on their service. Sound Familiar?

EDIT: And this is addressing the people who are not willing to stand up and fight for what's right, those who think that its too hard, or too complicated, your all a bunch of cowards and shame on you if you call yourself an American.

 

[Bob Maxey]

Dunno, but isn't AT&T the only provider that's pulling that crap on Android users?

Let me tell you about virgin Mobile.

I assumed that they were telling the truth when they promoted unlimited web. And it is indeed unlimited web when you consider that for their monthly fee, you could access the web for as long as you wanted.

What many users discovered is this little secret: you might have unlimited web, but a nasty little thing called a "Java Block" prevented the downloading of screen savers, ring tones, games, wallpaper, and apps. You would always get an access denied error.

You could only download things that were on their market. Games would cost 2.50 each (in most cases) but you also paid a monthly fee to keep them. It might not be fair, but I am sure it is covered in their contract and documentation.

Bob Maxey

 

[gallandof]

if that law passed that says jailbreaking/rooting is no longer illegal to gain features the phones offers by default. locking out the ability to root or jailbreak is going against that very law. so if the provider is allowing you access to every single feature the phone is capable of then go ahead and block rooting on my device. but as long as theres some feature or app that can only be had on rooting, the companies have no right to bloc myou from gaining them